Bob Cutler, CEO of Creative Consumer Concepts (C3), addressed CSPI's claims and the possibility of the unnecessary lawsuit. "This lawsuit is CSPI and the government over-reaching. Parents are capable of choosing what their children should eat. This issue is taking advantage of public sensitivity for topics such as obesity, the poor or the unemployed, which nobody can stand against without looking completely insensitive," said Cutler.

CSPI Litigation Director Stephen Gardner is the driving force behind the proposed lawsuit, giving McDonald's 30 days to stop distributing Happy Meal Toys. According to CSPI, McDonald's is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children.

According to a Center for Consumer Freedom website, (http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/13-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest), "CSPI's 'Integrity in Science' project is ostensibly concerned with the potential conflict of interest that researchers might have when their funding comes from industry. Many of CSPI's own campaigns -- including those heavily reliant on junk science -- are equally susceptible to conflict of interest charges. In addition to its $65,000 incentive to bash the fat substitute Olestra, CSPI accepted over $100,000 from the Park Foundation to work on its food additives project. In 2001, the reliably anti-alcohol Robert Wood Johnson Foundation gave CSPI's campaign against social drinkers $749,999."

FreeToChooseOurMeals.com is for anyone who wants to choose what they eat! Twitter: @ChooseMeals for more information about what you can do to protect consumer choice and stop these ridiculous issues.